Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Important Provider Compensation Topics in 2022

To begin a dialogue on important topics in physician compensation and fair market value, PYA surveyed more than 30 physician compensation experts to understand the collective thoughts on issues impacting these topics in 2022. These issues range from compensation for advance practice practitioners to value-based compensation. Please join PYA Senior Manager Katie Taylor as she discusses key physician compensation issues in 2022 ...

Healthcare whistleblower case regarding FMV can proceed

The CFO of a healthcare provider blew the whistle on his former employer, alleging it overpaid for a surgery center in order to induce it to refer future business.

The New Stark FMV is a Game-Changer: Foundational Concepts and Valuation Methodology

This two-part BVR webinar series provides a critical and in-depth assessment of the new definitions of fair market value under the regulations for the federal physician self-referral law commonly known as “Stark.” Many in the healthcare valuation industry have viewed the updated definitions, along with new commentary from the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as promoting “business as usual” for healthcare valuation practice. Timothy Smith, however, begs to differ. Smith was a major ...

BV News and Trends June 2022

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

ESOP valuations may be at a turning point

At last week’s inaugural ESOP Virtual Conference hosted by the American Society of Appraisers, the landmark Bowers case was discussed, which could represent a turning point for ESOP valuations.

Kuzma v. N. Ariz. Healthcare Corp.

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

U.S. District Court Partially Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Qui Tam Case on Excess Purchase Price Under the False Claims Act

The defendants in this qui tam case asked for summary judgment against the plaintiff Relator, who had alleged violations of the False Claims Act as it related to the sale of Surgery and Rehabilitation Centers by the defendants. Relator brought suit against the defendants, alleging they violated the FCA by overpaying the physician-owners of the Summit Center to reward them for past business and to induce future business in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. The defendants advanced three arguments in favor of summary judgment: (1) the acquisition price paid for the Summit Center was fair market value; (2) Relator had no evidence that the defendants acted with the requisite scienter; and (3) Relator cannot show a causal link between the alleged kickback and the submission of false claims.

In Re S-Tek 1, LLC

The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).

Bankruptcy Court Uses the ‘Replacement Value Standard’ as It Determines That Debtor ‘Enterprise Value’ Is Lower and Inappropriate

The debtor, S-Tek 1 LLC, submitted a motion to value to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the value of the collateral of Surv-Tek Inc. as to debt owed it by the debtor pledged as collateral for debt owed by S-Tek to Surv-Tek. The valuation was to be used in the confirmation of a Chapter 11 reorganization of S-Tek. The court used the replacement value standard of value instead of the “ongoing concern” value since the replacement value provided a value greater than the “enterprise value” (i.e., ongoing concern value).

King v. King

In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.

Maryland Appellate Court Affirms Trial Court on Value of Husband’s Business as Well as Several Other Divorce-Related Issues

In this Maryland divorce case, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court on all appealed issues including marital property determinations; monetary award to the wife; determination of incomes of the husband and wife; and determinations of alimony, child support, and related expenses. The Court of Special Appeals also affirmed that the husband’s business was not a gift and was marital property, and it determined the value of the business as the wife’s expert presented. Both parties were forensic accountants.

BV News and Trends April 2022

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Purchase price equals value of business caught up in divorce

In Wisconsin, the valuation opinions of two experts were deemed not credible for a business caught up in a marital dissolution.

No valuation adjustment for alleged acts of oppression

In a Connecticut case, four siblings were partners in a number of restaurant properties and one of the partners (who had a 25% interest) was ousted by the others.

AICPA offers free webcast on estate/gift valuations

A two-and-a half-hour webcast on estate and gift valuations is available free of charge from the AICPA.

Two cases on trapped-in gains tax—with opposite outcomes

In a California divorce case we recently covered, an appeals court disallowed a discount for possible future taxes because the taxes were neither immediate nor specific.

Dettloff-Meyer v. Meyer

The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.

Wisconsin Appellate Court Affirms Purchase Price as Value of the Business in a Divorce Matter

The husband in this divorce case appealed the circuit court ruling that relied on the purchase price of the business less than a year before the valuation date. The purchase was made from the wife’s parents at a price the parents determined of $500,000, most of which was goodwill. After an initial ruling from the circuit court accepting the value less debt of the husband’s expert, the wife asked for a reconsideration. The Circuit Court granted the reconsideration and found a value of the business of $45,230. The husband appealed the reconsidered decision of the circuit court. The appellate court determined that the circuit court’s use of the purchase price was not erroneous.

New Case Points Up Opportunity for Buy-Sell Valuations

A recent court case illustrates that many buy-sell agreements do not adequately address the issue of valuation when an owner exits the firm. This represents an opportunity for valuation experts to review clients’ buy-sell agreements to identify potential problems, which could mean recurring business for the practice.

BV News and Trends February 2022

A monthly roundup of key developments of interest to business valuation experts.

Houlihan Lokey and ELFA issue private debt valuation guide

Houlihan Lokey and the European Leveraged Finance Association (ELFA) have published a report as part of ELFA’s Diligence Series called Technical Guide for Valuation of Private Debt Investments.

A valuation trial—on papers only?

Yes, but only in New York?

Appellate court KOs discount for trapped-in capital gains taxes

In a Louisiana case, a dissenting shareholder was withdrawing her shares in a company and the valuation of her interest was in dispute, so a trial was held.

BVLaw Review: The Top Valuation Cases of 2021

Here is our pick for the state and federal court decisions that enhanced our understanding of valuation issues as they arose in a litigation setting during 2021.

Details start to emerge about the Prince estate valuation

One of the tricky assets to value in the Prince estate was the rock star’s name and likeness.

1 - 25 of 1,015 results